PER CURIAM: Allen Armfield appeals his conviction for
second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor. Armfield argues the trial
court erred in admitting his statement into evidence and refusing to give the
jury his requested jury charge. We affirm.[1]

1. We find the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Armfield's statement to
police. A trial court's factual findings as to the voluntariness of a
statement will not be disturbed on appeal unless they constitute an abuse of
discretion. State v. Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. 234, 243, 471 S.E.2d 689, 695 (1996). Among these circumstances, the court may
consider police coercion; the length of interrogation; its location; its
continuity; and the defendant's maturity, education, and mental health. State
v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 601, 683 S.E.2d 500, 507 (Ct. App. 2009) (citing Winthrow
v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 693 (1993)). Here, the evidence presented
establishes Armfield freely and voluntarily gave his statement to police.
Initially, Armfield's interview with police lasted only forty minutes and
within ten minutes Armfield had confessed to police. Additionally, when
Armfield arrived at the interview, he was neither confined to the interview
room nor was he under arrest. Further, Armfield admits he was never threatened
with physical harm. Moreover, as a fifty-three-year-old man with twelve years
of education, Armfield's personal characteristics do not present any
circumstances that would make him more susceptible to making an involuntary
statement due to coercion. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in
admitting Armfield's statement.

2. Because the trial court
is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina, we
find the trial court did not err in refusing Armfield's improper bolstering
jury charge. State v. Burkhart, 350 S.C. 252, 261, 565 S.E.2d 298, 303
(2002).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS
and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.